On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> But barriers force a flush of *everything* in scope, which we generally don't
> want. On the other hand, we pretty much always want to flush atomic_*
> operations. One way or another, we should be restricting the volatile
> behavior to the thing that needs it. On most architectures, this patch set
> just moves that from the declaration, where it is considered harmful, to the
> use, where it is considered an occasional necessary evil.
Then we would need
atomic_read()
and
atomic_read_volatile()
atomic_read_volatile() would imply an object sized memory barrier before
and after?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
